SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Wright & Anor v Queensland Police Service & Ors [2002] QSC 046
PARTIES:
WENDY ANN WRIGHT
(first applicant)
REBECCA EMMA LOUISE WRIGHT
(second applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(first respondent)
SENIOR CONSTABLE MARK ELLIS
(second respondent)
ANN THACKER SM
(third respondent)FILE NO/S:
S 745 of 2002
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
5 March 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
6 February 2002
JUDGE:
Holmes J
ORDER:
1. I declare that the warrant issued by the third respondent on 27 December 2001 is invalid.
2. I declare that the seizure of documents from 23 Goble Street, Hendra on 28 December 2001 was unlawful.
3. I dismiss the application for an injunction
requiring the first and second respondents to
deliver up all documents seized and all copies of
them.
4. I adjourn for further consideration the question as to whether an order should be made for the return of any documents or the videotape.CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS – WARRANTS – SEARCH WARRANTS – ISSURE AND VALIDITY - GENERALLY
Where second respondent applied over the telephone to the third respondent for permission to execute a warrant on the applicants – whether there existed urgent or special circumstances justifying the application for the warrant by telephone – whether the details prescribed by s452(2)(b) should appear on the face of the warrant – whether there was a failure to provide “brief particulars” of the offence – whether the “prescribed authority” came into existence in the absence of any actual document endorsed by the magistrate - whether non-compliance with sections 73 and 451 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 affected the validity of the warrant – whether items seized pursuant to an invalid warrant should be returned or retained – whether, where criminal proceedings had commenced against the applicant, the application should be stayed.
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 10
Criminal Code, s 123 – Perjury
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000
ss 4, 68, 73, 78, 451, 452
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Cloran (1984) 4 FCR 151
Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd v Australian Federal Police Commissioner (1991) 103 ALR 167
Brewer v Castles & Ors (No. 2) (1984) 52 ALR 577
Cassaniti v Croucher (1997) 37 ATR 269
Challenge Plastics Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (1993) 42 FCR 397
Commissioner of Police v Atkinson (1991) 23 NSWLR 495
Commissioner of Police v Barbaro (2001) 51 NSWLR 419
Ex Parte Bradrose Pty Ltd and Albezia Pty Ltd (1989) 41 A Crim R 274.
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104.
Ghani v Jones [1970] QB 693
GH Photography Pty Ltd v McGarrigle (1974) 2 NSWLR 635
Gollan v Nugent (1988) 166 CLR 18
Harts v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1997) 75 FCR 145
Hatton v Beaumont (1977) 2 NSWLR 211
Hedges v Grundmann; Ex parte Grundmann [1985] 2 Qd R 263
Inland Revenue Commission v Rossminster Ltd [1980]…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wright v Queensland Police Service and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2002] QSC 46
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the second respondent's application for permission to execute the warrant over the phone constituted urgent or special circumstances. The court also considered whether the details prescribed by section 452(2)(b) should be on the warrant's face, and if there was a failure to provide "brief particulars" of the offence. Additionally, the court examined whether the "prescribed authority" was valid without an actual document endorsed by the magistrate, and whether non-compliance with sections 73 and 451 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 affected the warrant's validity. The court also had to decide whether the items seized should be returned or retained, and if criminal proceedings had commenced against the applicant, whether the application should be stayed.
The court found that the warrant was invalid because the second respondent did not apply for permission to execute it in person, as required by the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. The court held that the warrant was not validly executed, and that the seizure of documents was unlawful. The court dismissed the application for an injunction requiring the respondents to deliver up all documents seized and all copies of them. The court adjourned the question of whether an order should be made for the return of any documents or the videotape for further consideration.
In summary, the court declared the warrant invalid and the seizure unlawful, dismissed the application for an injunction, and adjourned the question of whether an order should be made for the return of any documents or the videotape.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. I declare that the warrant issued by the third respondent on 27 December 2001 is invalid.
2. I declare that the seizure of documents from 23 Goble Street, Hendra on 28 December 2001 was unlawful.
3. I dismiss the application for an injunction
requiring the first and second respondents to
deliver up all documents seized and all copies of
them.
4. I adjourn for further consideration the question as to whether an order should be made for the return of any documents or the videotape.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.